>>936681516
>I called it a reversion of language, I think that is an accurate description
oh well see that's you're problem, you're trying to think above what your brain can handle. And yes anon, I get it over and over again, you think that words have been changed just to make you lose an argument online.
>However it doesn't mean I have not remained consistent
It actually does.
> taught to argue with an unbeatable rhetoric
Not really anon. I could have an argument that could be beaten, hell even you could have beaten portions of it if you hadn't tried to turn it into religious bullshit, with definitions that never existed other than in your mind.
> are you having fun with this conversation?
Not as much fun as those girls did on their river ride.